Hansa Ram Vs. State of Raj. and ors.

Hansa Ram vs State of Raj. and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Dec 03, 1998

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/767321

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/767321
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: B.J. Shethna, J.
Decided On: Dec 03, 1998
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3494 of 1998
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Constitution of India - Article 226--33 persons were allotted Diesel Barrel Points--Petitioner has challenged this allotment and has taken ground of malafides--Members of the selection committee have not been made party in the writ petition--Time was sought but lame excuses were put that the addresses are not availa...

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hansa Ram

Respondent

State of Raj. and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 1999(0)WLN40

Excerpt

constitution of india - article 226--33 persons were allotted diesel barrel points--petitioner has challenged this allotment and has taken ground of malafides--members of the selection committee have not been made party in the writ petition--time was sought but lame excuses were put that the addresses are not available--in such circumstances the writ is dismissed.;writ petition rejected - - ' 3. from the above, it clearly appears that the petitioner is not at all serious in joining the members of the selection committee as party respondents in this writ petition by giving false excuses......and therefore, it is not possible to implead them as party respondents in this case.' it is further stated in the affidavit that, 'hence, their correct address deserve to be summoned/discovered from the respondents so as that above members of selection committee can be impleaded as parry respondents in this case.'3. from the above, it clearly appears that the petitioner is not at all serious in joining the members of the selection committee as party respondents in this writ petition by giving false excuses.4. today, learned counsel shri soni straight away started arguing the matter challenging the order at annex.8 by which the allotment was made in favour of the respondent no. 3 also on the ground of malafide by submitting that the committee was comprising of the then three m.l.as of ruling party at that time and they have preferred to join the respondent no. 3 to the writ petition only because respondent no. 3 is a son of pradhan belonging to the same party.5. when serious allegations are made in the petition against the hon'ble members of the committee then they should be as a party on the record of the case. no order can be passed in a case where the members are not on record against whom serious allegations have been made. sufficient opportunity was given by hon'ble dr. b.s. chauhan, j on 22.10.1998 to the petitioner to implead the hon'ble members of the selection committee as party respondent to this case, but by giving false excuses no attempt was made to bring them on record of this case as party respondents.6. under the circumstances, this writ petition is required to be rejected and it is rejected.

Full Judgment

B.J. Shethna, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged in this petition the impugned order dated 10.9.1998 (Annex.8) passed in favour of in all 33 persons by Addl. Commissioner (Food) allotting Diesel Barrel Point. However, only present respondent No. 3 is joined as private respondent out of those 33 persons. Serious allegations have been made against the member of the selection committee, who were M.L.As of the State at that time, without making them as a party respondents. When this petition first came up before my learned brother Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. on 22.10.1998, the following order was passed-

22.10.98

Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. CHAUHAN

R.K. Soni, for the Petitioner.

Serious allegations have been made against the members of the selection committee though, none of them has been made party. Allegations of malafide cannot be entertained in such a way. Mr. Soni prays for time to implead them as party respondent.

Put up after three weeks.

2. Instead of joining them as party respondents the petitioner has filed affidavit dated 15.11,1998 in which he has named three M.L.As from Merta, Jodhpur and Dausa and gave the reason for no impleading them as party respondent by saying that, 'However, I do not know the proper address of them and therefore, it is not possible to implead them as party respondents in this case.' It is further stated in the affidavit that, 'Hence, their correct address deserve to be summoned/discovered from the respondents so as that above members of selection committee can be impleaded as parry respondents in this case.'

3. From the above, it clearly appears that the petitioner is not at all serious in joining the members of the selection committee as party respondents in this writ petition by giving false excuses.

4. Today, learned Counsel Shri Soni straight away started arguing the matter challenging the order at Annex.8 by which the allotment was made in favour of the respondent No. 3 also on the ground of malafide by submitting that the committee was comprising of the then three M.L.As of ruling party at that time and they have preferred to join the respondent No. 3 to the writ petition only because respondent No. 3 is a son of pradhan belonging to the same party.

5. When serious allegations are made in the petition against the Hon'ble members of the committee then they should be as a party on the record of the case. No order can be passed in a case where the members are not on record against whom serious allegations have been made. Sufficient opportunity was given by Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J on 22.10.1998 to the petitioner to implead the Hon'ble Members of the selection committee as party respondent to this case, but by giving false excuses no attempt was made to bring them on record of this case as party respondents.

6. Under the circumstances, this writ petition is required to be rejected and it is rejected.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1998 Same Parties Hansa Ram vs State of Raj. and ors. Same Subject Civil Same Judge B.J. Shethna, J.

Civil